New to the forum and I have been reading a lot of topics before posting and I have my first question. I see a lot of reference to third tier AR manufactures and 3rd tier quality guns etc… but there is no reference to which is what. I did read a bit about what is mil-spec and what is not and what some manufactures claim etc …
So my question is … is there an actual list of what manufactures are considered by most to be the 1st tier, 2nd tier 3rd tier or is this more of a personal point of view? Are there any that pretty much everyone seems to agree is in one place or the other?
I have a Colt 6520 and a Sig 516 and I love them both. I’m wondering where the quality seems to fall with those for example. Is the Sig barrel mil-spec with proper 5.56 chamber and barrel composition? Sure shoots nice although it is piston so it is in some ways not comparing apples to apples, but the barrel should be the same. But I don’t see much mention of where that fits in the “tiers”.
Tiers are bullshit.
The best way to determine if a gun is built to be shot for a long time is adherence to TDP, or a good reason why the part(s) used did not meet the protocol.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
There are no actual tiers and is honestly personal opinion. I put rifles into different groups based off of my experience with them, but that is just my preferences.
I have a Colt 6520 and a Sig 516 and I love them both. I’m wondering where the quality seems to fall with those for example. Is the Sig barrel mil-spec with proper 5.56 chamber and barrel composition? Sure shoots nice although it is piston so it is in some ways not comparing apples to apples, but the barrel should be the same. But I don’t see much mention of where that fits in the “tiers”.
Your 516 is a piston gun. So some of it just isn’t going to follow the TDP. With that said, you can still look at the barrel steel, bolt steel, testing done, etc and get an idea of how well it is made.
IMHO, when you get into anything that is basically NOT an M4, you need to just look at materials used and how it was assembled. Then pay attention to other owners reviews of said gun.
Ah I get it. So when someone here says that xyz is just a third tier manufacturer what they mean is that “to them” they are a 3rd tier quality manufacturer. Of course someone else might consider that same company a 1st tier manufacturer. This can be confusing to someone reading that kind of thing written by someone whose opinion is valued. It leads a person to believe that there are actual rankings of companies that follow the specs more closely than others and as such are listed in order of their adherence to it.
I wonder how the Sig516’s non-piston parts such as barrel etc… compare quality wise. I see a lot of opinons like “Sig stuff is not as good” or “I’ve heard that Sig stuff is not as good” but these seem to be personal opinions more than factual data. Does anyone have any factual data about how Sig’s barrels, frames, bolts and other parts other than piston parts, compare from a technical standpoint?
The following is my opinion developed by reading here and elsewhere and for the ever-helpful Chart.
First Tier: Colt, BCM, Daniel Defense, Noveske, KAC, and Centurion (uppers only). MAYBE JP Enterprises, Wilson Combat and Les Baer could fit into this tier, but I am not well enough informed to actually put them in.
Other Tiers: Crap that I do not wish to own. No offense, but any Sig from Exeter, NH falls into the crap tier. Sig from Germany is usually much better quality.
As others have mentioned tiers are BS. Any fanboy will put whoever built their M4 as tier 1. As Grant said, find a manufactor that is mil spec and follows the TDP and then talk to said owners. Still will be a biased opinion but at least talk to people who run their rifle hard instead of someone who has a safe queen.
As far as your rifles our concerned if both work for you and are dependable it doesn’t matter about their “tier”.
TDP is great, but I would also think that industry reputation counts for something to. Just because Noveske doesn’t follow the TDP with their M249 MG barrel steel, doesn’t mean it isn’t just as good or better than the TDP barrel steel. Cost and availability are important factors in the TDP, so sometimes you can get something better for a little more money.
Very true, buying say an upper with better specs than a name brand even though the brand might be no name. Specs rule in my opinion. You can buy cheaper lowers and uppers with better specs than the big brand companies.
This is the problem I’ve always had with the Chart. The casual observer or shooter who has little technical knowledge of the AR-15 style rifle looks at that chart and assigns brands into “tiers”, good, bad, or indifferent. The order of the names on the chart is the thing most people immediately look at, not the actual information about the particular brands. I thought the second file which was written by the author of the chart was actually much more informative as it aimed to educate shooters about the TDP and what they should look for in a rifle before buying or building.
Knowledge is power in many things in life and these rifles are no different. I agree there are no such things as tiers, just manufacturers who either adhere to a standard or not and it is the responsibility of the buyer/shooter to decide what they are comfortable with before buying. Obviously, more intricate knowledge of the TDP and the reputations of different manufacturers are more helpful than any “Chart”.
To reiterate, tiers are bullshit and so is blind adherence to the TDP (although this is the simplest way to go about it). Ultimately, the best gun for a person is the one that meets their needs and budget. The only variable is whether or not someone is competent to make that determination. Become your own SME.
Tiers are just ordering mechanisms. There are various levels of AR quality. If you don’t like the word “tier” because of its military implication and corollary mall-ninja’ness when used improperly, then fine, I’m with you. But there quite obviously ARE various levels of AR quality that manufacturers can be logically ordered by. This isn’t to say that every single rifle from every single manufacturer can be placed nicely into some hierarchical chart. I’m just saying that natural groups do emerge when comparing various examples.
A simple example that is not all inclusive by any means:
BCM / DD
RRA / BM
When considering these four manufacturers, there is clearly a logical way to group them. You might even say – put them into a tiered order. Gasp.
Tiers are just a somewhat less precise way of stratifying things than ordering from best to worst. It is nowhere near unique to the military/firearms community.
In the AR market, it would be hard to list the absolute #1 best AR manufacturer. It’s a lot easier to group them into tiers where everything in a given tier is roughly equal and you can’t go wrong. From reading posts on M4C I would have to conclude that the most recommended brands known for quality, accuracy, and customer service are great, brands like BCM, DD, Colt, and Noveske. Maybe KAC, LaRue, Rainier (if they count), Centurion, H&K, LWRC, and LMT as well. Then you get “bad” brands like Oly, Bushmaster, DPMS, and DTI. And middle of the road brands like Spikes, RRA, PSA, Stag, S&W, and maybe CMMG.
That makes an easy 3 tier system, doesn’t it? You could even name the tiers “Take into combat,” “Commercial grade,” “Don’t trust with your life.”
Sure. It’s all just personal opinion. However, there are some common observations from multiple experiences of knowledgeable people that allow categorizing different manufacturers, at least in a broad sense. Milwaukee vs DeWalt might be a horse apiece, but not many would argue Milwaukee vs Century (Harbor Freight).
I see it more are a “Go” or “No Go” type of delineation.
AR15s that are built correctly from quality components are in the “Go” category, whereas rifles built incorrectly from inferior components are simply a “No Go”.
Go:
Colt, Daniel Defense, Bravo Co., LMT, Noveske etc.
No Go:
Bushampster, Rock River, DPMS, Stag etc
The only place where someone really shed light on the components and build specs was “The Chart” that is linked to in the technical forum.
Without a simplistic reference like that, in order to discern if a rifle was good to go we really had to wade through a massive amount of anecdotal information on gun forums or publications. That is why companies like Bushampster still outsell a company like Bravo Co.
